I don't really think you have bad will Myrna, but you really need to educate yourself better because you just don't understand.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Cantarella,  I know for a fact they refuse only to KNOWN non-Catholics, and any women immodestly dressed, where the priest and altar boys are above her and see more than they care to see.  

UNLIKE Cantarella's Pope who offers "Communion" to anyone even a known pagan.  

Cantarella, not sure if you are so mistaken or just a liar.  So I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt;  you are mistaken about CMRI policies.  

No, people in the pews just do not realize how evil this is. They are being naïve and deceived. They just don't know any better.

According to the chart you posted, the ONLY valid ordinations left on earth are Thuc / Lefebvre. is this correct?

Do you even understand what does this mean?

It means that people that have been baptized by priests ordained in the New Rite are not really baptized because the Sacraments are invalid. It means that people who attend a Mass like the Novus Ordo or Byzantine rites do not really get to have the True Blood and Body of Our Lord. Make the necessary connections.

You as well as most CMRI attendees just don't realize how cultish and schismatic the whole organization really is. They are just dazzled by the mask of "Tradition". Of course they are not going to refuse people from coming in, even the ones coming from the NO. They always need new people to support them. Of course they won't do that but once you are already in, they will inject their diabolical propaganda until you are actually outside the Church without even realizing it. I don't really think you have bad will Myrna, but you really need to educate yourself better because you just don't understand.




 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Your concern about what physical building was used is plainly silly.

Bp. Pivarunas was 16 years old in 1974 and entered religious life. They purchased the Mount about 2 years later. He was finally ordained in 1985 at age 27, by Bp. George Musey.

In 1984 he helped oust Schuckardt. Cults don't oust their leaders.

You made a statement in this thread that the training cannot have been sufficient because Schuckardt was involved. Can you give us some detail on why you think that?

I asked the same question to Myrna which went unanswered, *surprise*.

Do you agree with CMRI that the seminary training from Schuckardt is the usual seminary training that all seminarians receive?

I asked you the question first. If you have a reason to say that priestly training, with Schuckardt as head of the organization, positively did not suffice for essential training to the priesthood, then give your reasons.

You obviously have no idea what is going on - rather than repost everything you have not bothered to read, here is about an 9 minute news video from 2003(?) showing only a teeny tiny bit of what Schuckardt was about.

Now, if you can stomach watching the whole thing to the end, answer if you agree with CMRI that Schuckardt offered the usual seminary training. Would you send your son to his seminary? - honestly?

   

Yes, I am perfectly aware of the CMRI past. However, since you gave the link as your response, and it was only 9 minutes, I watched it.

Now, I have to honestly say, nothing that video showed argues against a sufficient priestly training. You are attempting to make a personal conclusion that is not rational. There is no logical connection. It is all emotion. It's the like the emotional Prots who broke away from the Church because they took scandal by the scandals of selling indulgences, or other moral scandals in the hierarchy. It is a sin to take scandal, but dumping the Church is not rational.

So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?

And of course I make a personal conclusion - everyone does. You say there is no logical connection yet the CMRI disagrees with you. They are the ones who disagree with your personal conclusion. They are the ones who tell us on their website that their foundation started with Schuckardt in 1967. Why do you say there is no connection when they say there is?

I wasn't complaining about your making a personal conclusion, I was complaining that your personal conclusion was irrational.

I hope your brain doesn't work like that all the time, but you know what you also just did? You cut-off and trashed 2/3 of my message, and then took it in your own irrational direction! You cannot just turn the channel in life and pretend things don't exist. Take a look again at what you just cut-off. It is absolutely clear I was not talking about a social or historical connection to Schuckardt, but you went ahead with that anyway. I was clearly talking a logical connection; there is no logical connection between a moral scandal in a family, and the education or upbringing. But you fell into the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Here is another example. Catholic parents may not be aware that the Church traditionally forbids putting children in public school. The parents do so unwittingly, but their Catholic sense and home life discipline naturally challenges the dangers in public school. Challenges, I say, doesn't necessarily prevent. So when little Tommy graduates, and he turns out to be a devout Catholic, some will try to argue that the Church was wrong about public schools!  No, the Church isn't wrong. Thanks to the ignorance, good-will, prayers and disciplines of the parents, as well as the personality and interests of Tommy, the dangers didn't corrupt Tommy. The Church says the dangers are there, but recognizes some can avoid being affected. The Church still forbids it because in the face of dangers, we must take the morally safer course. So, I can legitimately recognize that Tommy turned out well, while acknowledging the dangers he was exposed to, as well as the objective principle that Tommy shouldn't have gone there.

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: En medio stat virtus

It's curious for any of us who are looking for truth to not realize that there were several Thuc line Bishops who were kicked out by CMRI. One of those being Bishop George Musey. Who they slandered verbally after his attempt to reform them. He did conditionally ordain them, but did not realize the true nature of the problems there. He simply called it spiritual incest. His words. They are basically self taught then and now. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth. And yes there are good people there who have suffered a lot during the Schukardt era, but it does not make it Catholic now.

I sympathize with wanting to get everything straight as soon as possible, but Bp. Musey pushed them too fast, which is not the mind of the Church. One thing that apparently made Bp. Musey impatient to correct everything was that he believed he had ordinary jurisdiction over the CMRI, and he did not. That was a perfectly good reason to cease working with him. Your usage of "kicked out" shows a bias. No Thuc line bishop has lived with them.

There are two sides to every story. Both make up the history. I will say this, CMRI has fairly represented the side of their critics when I have questioned them. How do I know that? I dealt directly with those critics and the story was the same. I have also spoken to objective third parties who have explained different situations. Overall, CMRI under Bp. Pivarunas has proved itself a worthy organization.

We could sit here for weeks on end and drag the name of just about every single traditional priest through the mud. We could talk about the mistakes of men, now dead and judged, who are unable to defend themselves. If Stubborn or his lady friend think that their favorites are immune, it is because they are completely blind to their own faults and shortcomings. Bp. Pivarunas' list of alleged mistakes or infractions are much shorter than most. I am not advocating doing that to anyone, but what good would it serve? What good has Stubborn achieved by his tirade?

Also, I'm still waiting...Stubborn how have you or anyone else been punished by questioning CMRI, or others that you allege to be cult members? I want names, specific punishments, and the question that caused the punishment.

As usual, you dodge the issue.

This is about the fact that you all say there is no connection with Schuckardt, yet the CMRI website more than once says that there is, though they say it in a way that does not mention his name.

Personally, I have no desire to be connected in anyway to a man who started his own church and called it Catholic, but that's just me, and presumably others out there who are not as indifferent to the situation there as you.

I said your replies are cult like. That you all demonstrate cult like characteristics with your replies. I also already said why - I'm not going back to quote myself, if you would have read what I wrote perhaps you would understand why you all act that way.

 

Actually, I laid out everything that was known and a summary of my entire knowledge and method of research in one post in particular.

You just won't be happy unless someone says "Oh, wow, Stubborn, thanks for saving me from those awful people. Please, take me to your leader so I can be a real Catholic."

In your pride, you don't realize that you are making a case for the CMRI and one against yourself.

So, tell me again, since you highlighted the fact that these alleged cult like members punish questioners dissenters: How were you, or any person punished? Give names, the dissent or question asked, and their subsequent punishment.

You highlighted that point buddy, not me. Now, I want to know the detail about these people who were punished so that I can admonish those who have sought to punish others.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. In this case, "punished" = attempted insults.

I will try to spell it out for you - best of luck with it because I won't spell it out anymore. I thought you had at least a little bit more understanding  - but I was wrong again.

Because I questioned the CMRI........... the cult like replies happened
 in harmony - you all answered with your CMRI inspired "wonderful Christian charity" replies. IOW,  - this charity consists of ad hominems.

Are ad hominems meant to reward their victim or a form of punishment?

 

Firstly CMRI did not create the chart, Father Cekada did.  I posted it to refute what Stubborn believed about CMRI, Stubborn like you, only sees what he wants to see, and hides from the Truth because it does not fit your lifestyle.  

Quote from: Stubborn

So would your answer be yes or no? - does that mean that you would have no issues sending your son to him for his seminary training?

Do you really read all of what you respond to? Or is it your reading comprehension? My answer is clearly there at the end.